Evangelical Consumerism, Evangelical Politics, Evangelical Culture, and Evangelical Identity

Evangelical Consumerism, Evangelical Politics, Evangelical Culture, and Evangelical Identity September 8, 2018

A number of blog posts and articles have converged on aspects of Evangelical culture and identity in ways that I think it will be useful to bring into conversation with one another.

The post that got me thinking about these connections is about “Hobby Lobby Evangelicalism” and consists mostly of an ethnographic account of visiting the store. Here’s a quote from the post that particularly jumped out at me:

George Marsden once defined evangelicalism as “anyone who likes Billy Graham.” I’ve always liked that definition, since it gets at the idea of evangelical identity. A few years back, I toyed with updating that definition to “anyone who shops at a Christian bookstore.” It seemed to me that American evangelicalism was as much a consumer culture as it was a group of people who ascribed to a certain set of beliefs. If evangelicalism today is as much an identity as a theology, I think it makes sense to pay attention to how consumption constructs that identity.

Anyone who has studied culture will know that aspects of a culture will seem strange to an outsider but make sense within the network of values and assumptions that underpin it and are intertwined around it. An example was mentioned in a post about understanding Evangelical opposition to abortion:

Contraception is about preventing pregnancy. Christians who regard abortion as murder ought to celebrate contraception. Not only do relatively few of them do so, but some actually oppose contraception. We atheists are fond of pointing out how little sense this makes. If you were serious about preventing what you regarded as murder and had effective ways of doing so, why would you oppose them?

I suspect most of us realize that this is not really about abortion. At least, it is not only about abortion. It is also about embarrassingly puritanical views of sex as being dirty and immoral unless it happens with the goal of producing a child. When you encounter a “pro-life” Christian who opposes contraceptive methods, you are likely dealing with someone who holds these views of sex. Sex for pleasure without any intention of producing a child is something that such a Christian will almost certainly regard as “sinful.”

For many of these Christians, I suspect that the primary concern is over what they perceive as promiscuity. They oppose abortion, at least in part, because they see it as a free pass for the promiscuous. A couple of heterosexual teenagers have sex, and the woman gets pregnant. It is an unwanted pregnancy, but if we (i.e., society) provide her with a safe and accessible alternative to giving birth, we are enabling others to be promiscuous by removing the consequences. Contraception does the same thing. Permissive attitudes toward sex do the same thing…

If I’m right about any of this, I suppose it might help to unravel the apparent inconsistency over how many in the “pro-life” crowd are equally adamant in their support for the death penalty or in their opposition to social assistance programs. This isn’t about the “sanctity of life” at all; it is about the fear that protecting people from some of the more dire consequences of their actions will lead to widespread moral decay. The promiscuous teenagers, the inmate on death row, the family living in poverty – all must suffer so that others do not do follow their example. It doesn’t really matter that some may be in the situation they are in through no fault of their own. There is little room for empathy here. Jesus would be so proud.

Steve Wiggins’ post about the humorous fact that Google provide the Quaker Oats logo as though it were the symbol of the Quaker religion also seems relevant to the way religious identity, consumer products, and the internet coincide or at times perhaps conflict in interesting ways…

See also:

The New Evangelical Litmus Test

Evangelicals Have Long Pursued Political Power

When Christians Sell Out Christians for Political Power

What If Jesus Doesn’t Know You?

A Categorization of Evangelical Ideas about Gender Roles

Evangelicalism: A Political Movement?

Evangelicalism is an Imagined Religious Community

Sunday is Not the Main Event: A Practice-Based Christianity (Aaron Niequist)

See too Fred Clark’s posts on the “MAGA Commission.”

"I think that to call humanity a virus is a dangerous kind of misanthropy."

Are Humans a Virus?
"I think you would also need to read the text without an index or list ..."

Challenge to Fundamentalist Bible Readers
"Heilig doesn't say that that's Carrier's official pronouncement, but that he 'entertains' the possibility (something ..."

A Teeny, Tiny Possibility You’re Wrong
"Viruses are a kind of parasite that thrive at the expense of their host.Humans aren't ..."

Are Humans a Virus?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Phil Ledgerwood

    The abortion issue is definitely about promiscuity. Whenever you talk about loosening up abortion regulations, the example that always gets thrown around is the hypothetical woman sleeping around having lots of casual sex and getting abortions whenever necessary.

    I’m not saying pro-lifers don’t actually care about the life of an unborn child, and I would also generally identify as “pro-life” although in a much more holistic sense than the abortion issue, but you only need to listen to what protesters call women going into abortion clinics to know what the big issue is for many of these people. They want sexual behavior to have long term consequences.

  • Joanne

    I am wondering what type of contraception you are referring to here because there are some that actually do destroy the embryo after conception so I can understand why pro-lifers would be against these types. I’ve also heard a statistic that married Christians have the highest percentage of sexual satisfaction.Do you have any links on this info? I am curious to know and will do some searching myself.

    • jh

      Nope. Conception is defined is implantation into the uterus walls. Loads of fertilized eggs get flushed out routinely because they failed to implant. It’s yet another conservative lie about what contraception does and is. This is how I know that forced birthers don’t really have valid claims and are hiding the truth of why they oppose contraception and abortion access. If you have to lie to get people to support you, it’s a flaw in your position. I don’t need to lie to get people to enjoy eating food from around the world. I don’t need to lie about the dangers of walking off of tall buildings. I don’t need to lie about the pain that would be felt if you touched a hot metal object. I don’t need to lie about why child pornography, even the mere possession of it, is worthy of being criminalized. Why? Because I have valid positions that concord with reality. I can point out statistics, logical chains of reasoning to prove my case. I don’t need to lie like forced birthers do. Unfortunately, the forced birthers preach to a group that are equally ignorant of basic biology and refuse to learn. They would rather be lied to be forced birther leaders than open a basic human bio book and learn what the definition of conception is.

      I’ll take the opinion of this group – American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)—agree that the establishment of a pregnancy takes several days and is not completed until a fertilized egg is implanted in the lining of the woman’s uterus. (In fact, according to ACOG, the term “conception” properly means implantation.) A pregnancy is considered to be established only when the process of implantation is complete (see box, page 8). I don’t think that grandmas on streets who haven’t taken a single college course in any science or priests who can’t distinguish between a neuron or a fibroblast should have the authority to speak definitively about standard medical terminology and misuse it (aka lie). You can babble about morality and ethics but you shouldn’t have to lie to prove your point. That’s why the abolitionists won against pro-slavers. That’s why the suffragists won the vote. Any group that has to lie and demonize the other and cannot argue on the specific merits of the debate are arguing in bad faith and should not be allowed to have a platform. Liars don’t deserve platforms.

      (Of course, states will re-define medical terminology to suit their political agenda. But when did a law degree grant the poltician the right to practice medicine and in particular, the area of pregnancy? Would you trust any senator, congressperson, governor to give medical advice and treat a pregnant person? I wouldn’t be so stupid.)